Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Banning words won’t make the world more just

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 1001 posts

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#221

Post by DiggyJohnson »

deely3 wrote: post #168
variant wrote: post #34

Can we just all start operating from the perspective that we're not trying to offend each other? Do away with all these rules that serve no purpose other than to slot each other into buckets of enlightened and evil. It's a sign that we have things way too good.

But how can we logically separate "trying to offend" and "not trying to offend" stances here, on a social platform, by reading two or three sentences comment written by some anonymous?

By assuming others are not trying to offend, and practicing apathy when we suspect they are. Offense is not violence.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#222

Post by nomdep »

deely3 wrote: post #168
variant wrote: post #34

Can we just all start operating from the perspective that we're not trying to offend each other? Do away with all these rules that serve no purpose other than to slot each other into buckets of enlightened and evil. It's a sign that we have things way too good.

But how can we logically separate "trying to offend" and "not trying to offend" stances here, on a social platform, by reading two or three sentences comment written by some anonymous?

Easy. You always asume “not trying to offend” unless there is strong evidence to the contrary

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#223

Post by frosted-flakes »

pwinnski wrote: post #156
Tade0 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some years ago, I causally used the "r-word" and didn't even think anything of it, and blam! big mistake. Doug Stanhope has a great skit in which he explains that the word "retarded" was originally the sensitive way to refer to this group, because at the time they were called directly derogatory terms. But, like with every such attempt it was quickly adopted as an insult. My not particularly original take is that p…

Yeah, there's no word to describe something negative that can't be turned into an insult. Whatever words we use to describe people on the fringes of society will be turn against those we don't like to treat them as if they are on the fringes of society. If it somehow became popular to describe people of a certain type using the phrase "people on the fringes of society," then within a generation or two kids would taun…

Just like Special Education students in schools, students who require one-on-one teaching from trained teachers. It was abbreviated as sp.ed., and where I grew up, "sped" was a common insult, as in "you're such a sped", or "that sped is so retarded".

I once got into a debate with someone on Reddit where they claimed "Middle East" is an offensive term, which was news to me. They preferred "West Asia and Northern Africa", or something. I claimed that this is just taking the same path that "oriental" took, which is now taboo in some countries, even though it literally means "from the east" and is the opposite of "occidental".

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#224

Post by twodave »

deely3 wrote: post #168
variant wrote: post #34

Can we just all start operating from the perspective that we're not trying to offend each other? Do away with all these rules that serve no purpose other than to slot each other into buckets of enlightened and evil. It's a sign that we have things way too good.

But how can we logically separate "trying to offend" and "not trying to offend" stances here, on a social platform, by reading two or three sentences comment written by some anonymous?

You shouldn't try. Assume the best and move on. This is just basic manners.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#225

Post by nonethewiser »

jurassic wrote: post #54

The pendulum is swinging back because equity language censors took this way way too far. People-first language ("enslaved people" not "slaves") makes complete sense to me, but making a big fuss about how common English idioms like being "blind to a problem" is somehow offensive is going to earn you nothing but eyerolls from nearly everyone. Some of these, like "grandfathering", cannot even be understood without deep…

That is ridiculous. Was this hospital on the coast? I did not hear this at our hospital.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#226

Post by OrvalWintermute »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #82
majormajor wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term latinx didn't come out of "rich educated people" - certainly a lot of educated folk have been pushing it in the last decade (self-identifying grad students and recent college grads, for instance) - but there's a weird sort of prejudice going on in assuming everything can only come out of "rich educated [non-latino, based on your use of "their" there] people" Some discussion here: https://www.latimes.com/opin…

Where the term originated matters to some extent, but also where it comes from & is being used also matters. And the drive for 'Latinx' is coming from rich educated people.

The Latinx term is a neocolonial re-appropriation of the proud heritage of many peoples that isn't even grammatically correct.

I know no one from these groups that uses this term.

> And the drive for 'Latinx' is coming from rich educated people.

rich educated people, or rich uneducated people pushing a narrative and inventing words that are patently offensive to the speakers of said language?

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#227

Post by 8note »

HyperSane wrote: post #213
jurassic wrote: post #54

The pendulum is swinging back because equity language censors took this way way too far. People-first language ("enslaved people" not "slaves") makes complete sense to me, but making a big fuss about how common English idioms like being "blind to a problem" is somehow offensive is going to earn you nothing but eyerolls from nearly everyone. Some of these, like "grandfathering", cannot even be understood without deep…

A pregnant person is a woman.

At least, the person that birthed you is your mother.

I'd question the association between mother and woman, rather than mother and birth

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#228

Post by friend_and_foe »

> Although the guides refer to language “evolving,” these changes are a revolution from above. They haven’t emerged organically from the shifting linguistic habits of large numbers of people.

Yes, that's sort of the point. The goal here is not only to force people to behave and even think in a certain way, but it is simultaneously a loyalty test and a flex. If it were to happen organically it wouldn't serve these purposes.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#229

Post by sertsa »

ok_dad wrote: post #133
ryandrake wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The euphemism treadmill is a running joke, It feels more like a minefield than a joke. A minefield that gets new mines added every so often just to keep everyone on their toes. When I was younger, I used to feel like I could keep up with all the new taboo words, but it seems like it is happening faster and faster these days. You can unintentionally say something that turns out to be taboo, and you're done for. Some…

> I causally used the "r-word" and didn't even think anything of it You casually called someone a "retard" (I assume that's the word) and someone took that wrongly? Of course they did! Even when "retard" was an acceptable put-down, it was still a put-down. Maybe the way to avoid the "minefield" you speak of is to not put others down? Even deservedly! Just try to be nicer to everyone, even if they are not, themselves,…

I've never thought of retarded as a putdown, it was just the sound used to describe a certain group of people. Be careful assuming you are in possession of the one true way.

Re: Banning words won’t make the world more just

#230

Post by farnsworth »

Only tangentially related but I think it's interesting that just as we popularized the word "Ms.", and I think it makes perfect sense not to refer to women primarily by their marital status, we sort of worked around the issue by... largely just not using title/last name anymore. Right? I don't think I've referred to anyone by a title since my grade school teachers, and at least in my industry and corner of society, it's a complete non-issue.
Post reply on HN